I disagree with the criticism. Experiencing the original artifacts of history, like the original unenhanced film, is still possible. And totally understand that it's vital that that is still possible. But experiencing history is not just about experiencing its old, degraded artifacts. It's also useful and enlightening to experience history as it might actually have been back then.
Of course that's partially an illusion, and it's important to be aware of that. But it's still a useful illusion. It's not for nothing that many ancient ruins have been restored so people can get a better impression of what they were actually like. With ruins this is actually a lot more questionable than with film, because you actually change the original historic artifact (which is probably why nobody repaints those ancient statues that probably used to have colour). But we do restore even ancient paintings that have been darkened by the passing of time.
With that in mind, why would we not take this opportunity to create a much clearer window to the past?
Of course that's partially an illusion, and it's important to be aware of that. But it's still a useful illusion. It's not for nothing that many ancient ruins have been restored so people can get a better impression of what they were actually like. With ruins this is actually a lot more questionable than with film, because you actually change the original historic artifact (which is probably why nobody repaints those ancient statues that probably used to have colour). But we do restore even ancient paintings that have been darkened by the passing of time.
With that in mind, why would we not take this opportunity to create a much clearer window to the past?